I think you will find Derrida wa a Marxist too, at least in the sixties. Post-modernism is a reaction by Marxist to the failures of Marxism and Maoism. George Orwell put it best " They (socialist) don't love the poor they hate the rich".
-
-
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Er, George Orwell was an *extremely* ardent socialist (https://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/ …), Ann Coulter was the one who said that. Orwell was an actual communist revolutionary in Spain, he just loathed Stalinism (in part bc Stalinists invaded Catalonia) and totalitarianism.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @simon_enefer and
I read just a bit about Derrida’s political views, but Marxism was VERY popular w/his ilk in the 60s, it’s at least an influence. I just know he hated the French Communist Party, was called a “libertarian pessimist” in the 80s, & acted SUPER pro-Marx once the US was unchallenged
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
Anyone who supported Marxism after the 1920s is as suspect as someone whi supports national socialism post 1945. They are branches of the same philosophical/political tree. If anything Marxismis worse. Responsible for at least 4 times as many deaths and untold misery.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
You might not like hearing this, but... capitalism is responsible for many more deaths than could be attributed to Marxism. It’s been used to justify genocide since the Age of Exploration, all deaths caused by artificial scarcity (and by Nestlé and Chiquita), and so much more.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @simon_enefer and
That being said, modern Marxists don’t support the policies that led to so many deaths, bc they aren’t needed by socialism— the biggest tragedies were just bad agriculture No specific course of gov’t action is *needed* for socialism beyond the state not suppressing labor anymore
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
1. Not just agriculture! The Great Leap forward for example. The approach is flawed because the human race is. The majority of people are decent, but a few lack empathy or hopelessly overestimate their abilities. Both types are dangerous and desire power to fill an inner void.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
The Great Leap Forward WAS an agricultural disaster. They culled the sparrows, because they had been eating the seeds during the planting process, but then the parasites that the sparrows normally kill ended up devastating the crops.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
1. It was a famine, caused by Mao's demand that industrial production, particularly iron production increase. So villagers would melt down agricultural tools to meet the quota. It had nothing to do with killing birds and everything to do with party policy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
Although the rapid industrialization was disastrous in its own right, the branch of GLF policy that *primarily* led to the frame was their central approach to agrarian collectivism. Killing birds *was* one disastrous agrarian party policy, of several. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Bottom line: besides this type of policy not even making sense in an already industrilialized society; and the fact that many socialists— including myself— strongly oppose ANY sort of centralized, authoritative planning; agricultural science has advanced far beyond Maoist China.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.